Would a neighbor be allowed to erect a tower and boom to cantilever a camera over onto your property's boundaries?

Even if his tree limb comes over your property line, generally the infringed upon property owner is allowed to cut that down. What if your neighbor attached a camera to a limb of his tree which overhung your property. Still legal to cut it down, right?

So then why would a remote camera be treated any differently? Why couldn't I bring that down like I could a camera on an overhanging limb?

I'd think someone would be able to write some rules into air rights to prevent this shit.

In the United States, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has the sole authority to control all public airspace, exclusively determining the rules and requirements for its use. Public air space is classified as the 'navigable' airspace 500 feet AGL (Above Ground Level).

Property owners may waive (or purchasers may be required to waive) any putative notion of "air rights" near an airport, for convenience in future real estate transactions, and to avoid lawsuits from future owners nuisance claims against low flying aircraft. This is called a navigation easement.[

Because this isn't just looking with a spy glass or satellite; this is physical intimidation.

I think the technology is super cool. But also I have zero issues with skeet shooting them down.PULL!

Raising a different issue with drones is motor vehicle safety. I had a little helicopter drone fly right up to my car window while driving through a neighborhood. Privacy wasn't my first concern, since drivers & passengers traveling on public roads have little expectation of privacy. We're already under surveillance in lots of legal ways, plus other drivers and pedestrians can also see us.

Rather, it was the surprise factor that startled me with this thing, flying low almost to my car window opening. I don't know if the drone operator was being mischievous, malicious or merely not well skilled.

What happened if it collided with my car, and scraped the paint? Do I have the right to seize it as evidence until the police arrive? Does it become my property if it flies inside my open window? Do I have an obligation to stop and return it, or can I keep driving away? What if it causes me to crash and have more serious damage, even injuries? Or if I hit another driver?

"Sorry I hit you! A drone flew right across my windshield and distracted me!" "I didn't see a drone, where is it?" Well, it WAS right here, it must have flown away." Just like your alibi for causing the accident just flew away.

These things have no license plates, and while registration of them has begun, not everyone has complied yet, nor will some likely ever. Do they require liability insurance, like most motor vehicles do that operate in public space?

I just don't think they're safe for use in populated areas. We've had radio-controlled model airplanes for many years, and I don't believe they can just fly down the public streets, and into people's yards. I don't think helicopter drones should be doing that, either.

Amusing, but misleading. NYC Mayor Bloomberg is gone (unless he's serious about running for President), and I think his attempted city ordinance (not NY State) against Big Gulps is gone, too.

Maybe SF has something like that, perhaps some guys here know. But such laws restrict the sellers, they don't penalize the buyers to my knowledge. Interesting, also, that the cartoon shows these guys being kinda paunchy.

Wasn't being overweight one of the the health concerns of proponents in limiting sugary drinks and unhealthy junk food? Along with a laundry list of other medical concerns? To reduce the cost burden and patient load on the health system? Ironically, this is a gay "health & fitness" site where things like Big Gulps and supersized burgers & drinks should be anathema.

And also oddly, similar to one of the health arguments the US Right Wing uses to close women's reproductive services clinics. "We Republicans are only concerned with the health safety of women, so these clinics have to close. Women cannot be trusted to choose for themselves. We majority, non-medically-trained males in the legislature must do it for them."

I guess which health issue you focus on, and how you interpret it, depends upon your personal ideology. And how about Right Wingers wanting to peer inside our bedrooms, at our private sexual practices, to police any that don't conform to their political and religious beliefs?

So please, no misleading cartoons here about who's snooping on who. (From conservativedailynews.com, BTW). I don't want any overly obtrusive government at all, but if I only had the choice between 2, I'd rather have a well-meaning nanny state from the Left, than an oppressive Big Brother state from the Right.